- cypherpunks-legacy - lists.cpunks.org

Re: PGP, Inc.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 8-MAY-1996 11:06:21.74 >Since VeriSign is going to issue certs for nyms for free, the only >requirement being uniqueness, using their certs might not prove much of a >problem. I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? -Allen

1 0

Re: time services on the Net
by Bill Stewart 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:11 AM 5/7/96 -0400, you wrote: >I'm in need of a time service available over the Internet. >Time-stamping is a plus, but the actual time (GMT, local, ...) >is more important. Does anyone have, or know of where I >can find, a list of these services? Check out http://www.clock.org/clock.org.html and http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/ for more information. There are some standard TCP/IP protocols for time. You can check the RFCs for more information on them, and look in whatever your operating system calls the "services" file. There's a simple "daytime" protocol which gives the time in hours:minutes:seconds at 1-second resolution, in ASCII or binary, over TCP or UDP. It's dumb, but it works fine if that's enough resolution for you, and there are programs to set your system clock based on it, such as rdate for Suns and wsntime for Winsock. There's a far fancier protocol called NTP, the Network Time Protocol, which is a multi-tiered time protocol with servers and clients and mutual agreement and adjustment for round-trip delay and such. Depending on the quality of your network connections, it can be accurate to very fine time resolutions. It's good form for ISPs to support NTP, both to keep their clocks synchronized and to feed time to their clients, but not all of them do that. It's also good form for ISPs to keep _all_ their machines in sync, not just most of them, as occasionally happens at (ahem) some large well-known ISPs, especially if they're going to bill for prime/nonprime time... Another motivation is so that tycho.usno.navy.mil and its friends tick and tock.usno.navy.mil only get hit by a few thousand ISPs instead of potentially millions of individuals. Ask your ISP's administrators what they do about clock sync, unless of course you _are_ the administrator, or your ISP takes three weeks to respond to tech support questions like the (ahem) large well-known ISP not named above. I currently use wsntime to sync off cesium.clock.org because my ISP has reconfigured their time service and takes weeks to respond to tech support quetions, but I was using the ISP directly for a while. # Thanks; Bill # Bill Stewart, stewarts(a)ix.netcom.com, +1-415-442-2215 # goodtimes signature virus innoculation

1 0

Re: PGP, Inc.
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"shamrock(a)netcom.com" 9-MAY-1996 23:02:01.67 >At 19:37 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >> I can see some fascinating legal questions with what, exactly, a >>VeriSign certificate obligates the company for. Digital signature laws should >>get interesting - any application of this to the Utah one? >VeriSign is going to offer four levels of certs. The first requires only >uniqueness. For the other three levels, VeriSign will require more and >better assurances of the correctness of True Name stated on the cert. I >don't know what form these assurances are supposed to take. The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have _any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? -Allen

3 2

Re: PGP, Inc.
by shamrock＠netcom.com 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 23:10 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: > The first level, in other words, is less of a certification than a PGP >key with self-signature and signature from one other person. It doesn't have >_any_ effort to verify that the email address stated on it is the actual email >address of that nym. Or am I misinterpreting you? I was on a panel with a representative from VeriSign at Interop in Las Vegas. He said that uniqueness was the only requirement for the first level of cert. I don't have any information beyond that. Disclaimer: My opinions are my own, not those of my employer. -- Lucky Green <mailto:shamrock@netcom.com> PGP encrypted mail preferred.

2 1

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by tcmay＠got.net 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 11:40 PM 5/9/96, E. ALLEN SMITH wrote: >From: IN%"tcmay(a)got.net" 8-MAY-1996 16:30:16.71 > >>Then we'll see what happens. (This is an old debate, here and on the >>Cyberia-l list, to wit, what happens when people/perverts/libertarians >>choose to subvert the voluntary ratings by deliberately mis-rating their >>stuff? Or what if they genuinely believe, a la NAMBLA, that youngsters >>should be exposed to certain things?) > > I don't agree with NAMBLA, BTW, in case anyone is wondering. No need for people to point this out, as my point was an hypothetical, to show that there simply _is no objective standard_ in such matters. For every proposed "ratings" system that involves value judgments about who should see something, I can think of examples where a quite opposite view is held. I still think we are being led down a dangerous path in trying to architect ratings systems. As I said, we don't rate written words (at least I don't), we don't rate newspapers, etc. If a system gets built into the WWW, as with proposals for PICS, it _will_ be used by those who want to control content. We should think twice before helping in any way. (No, I'm not _against_ private ratings services...but this has little to do with _me_, and I won't participate. More importantly, I won't have my content have any kind of tag attached! Thus, the PICS thing looks intrusive to me, and not at all what I think of as a "private ratings service." I'll elaborate if my point is unclear.) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay(a)got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."

2 1

Re: Nazis on the Net
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"tallpaul(a)pipeline.com" 1-MAY-1996 13:19:10.69 >I stand behind my original post and the analysis in it. >I am amused at the tremendous attempts by people with certain political >affinities to bail out Weaver by a series of arguments based either on Actually, the political affinities seem rather to be on the other foot. Every organization I know of that calls Weaver a racist, as opposed to a separatist, also tries to deny exactly how wrongful the government's actions were at Ruby Ridge. The biggest example of this is the US government, but organizations such as the American Jewish Committee are also guilty of this apologia. If you don't believe me on this (Rich, for instance, had doubted that anyone was defending the actions at Ruby Ridge), I suggest reading "A Force Upon the Plain", which is by the AJC's person on hate groups. In it, he calls the actions of the USG at Ruby Ridge as, at worst, a mistake - and a more justifiable mistake in his view than Weaver's not showing up for his court hearing. In almost all cases in the chapter on Ruby Ridge, he states the government's side of the story as fact, and uses quotes - prominently labelled as from "white supremacists" - to describe the Weavers' side of the story. >profound ignorance of political realities or with their own private >dictionaries. If you believe that my definition of racism is out of my "own private dictionary," I invite you to see Webster's Second College Edition New World Dictionary of the English Language: Racism. 1. Same as racialism (sense 1). 2. Any program or practice of racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, and domination, based on racialism. Racialism. 1. A doctrine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etcetera, that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races. 2. same as racism (sense 2). The second definition of racism is actually _more_ restrictive than my definition. I call someone practicing "racial discrimination, segregation, persecution, _and_ domination" a racist, whether or not they believe in some superiority of some race. I do appreciate the inclusion in Webster's of "without scientific support," since I am a scientist. >The whole argument of racism vs. white separatism vs. white suppremicist >seems more to come from people who argue whether someone is a Baptist or a >Christian or a Southern Baptist or a Protestant. (In mathematical set >theory one would trace the fallacy in thinking to the false idea that any >given element of a set cannot be the element of more than one set. Thus, if >(X is a member of Y) it cannot also be a member of Z.) I regard racism and racial supremacism as two sides of the same thing. Racial separatism overlaps with racism, but someone who practices one is not necessarily in favor of the other. I do not dispute that someone who is a racial separatist can also be a racist, and indeed often is. I simply am not willing to condem someone as a racist when the only organizations calling him such have clear motives to call what happened at Ruby Ridge something other than premeditated murder. >I understand that James D. is not accusing me of being a "child molester" >but merely using it as a reductio ad adsurdem argument. >Let me continue in this vein. >The issue of child molestation was dragged in and had no relevance on the >immediate political isues of Weaver et al. >But imagine people are arguing about the deep fundamental differnces >between someone who is a "child molester" vs. a "pedophile" vs. a "boy >lover." The analogy works quite well, in some ways. A pedophile who carries out his (usually his) desires is a child molester. A boy lover may be a pedophile, and may if a pedophile be a child molester. But I have known someone who had sexual attractions to underage boys but controlled them - he regarded carrying out such urges as wrong (I agree with him, if anyone is wondering). I would not call him a child molester. -Allen

1 0

Re: remailer@utopia.hacktic.nl down
by Jim Byrd 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

At 07:15 PM 5/9/96 -0700, qut(a)netcom.com (Dave Harman) wrote: > >Oh, in what way was Elrom racist? (he's not anti-asian or anti-semitic, >for instance) > One famous comment of L. Ron Hubbard was that blacks were too stupid to move the needle on the e-meter. Another comment was that the problem with China is that there are too many "chinks" in it. All this, and much more, is documented in "A Piece of Blue Sky" by John Atack (and in other places).

2 1

Re: Mandatory Voluntary Self-Ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"vznuri(a)netcom.com" "Vladimir Z. Nuri" 9-MAY-1996 21:07:58.36 >From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle(a)MIT.EDU> >> I've figured out where my differences between myself and others >>lay. The _only_ system and service that I am aware of that is distributing >>PICS labels is RSAC. (http://www.rsac.org) They are what one could call an >>objective and non-arbitrary content rating system rather than an >>"appropriateness" system. Actually, SafeSurf (of CyberAngels association - an indicator of problems right then and there) is doing so also. >now, it seems that the author might as well put the tags in his material >himself instead of going through this submission process. furthermore I think they want the ability to track who's putting their ratings into their web pages. They don't check very well, though; when I wanted to see what the questionarre was like, I simply put in a fake email address (which could have been a nym's address), a fake web page, and a pseudonym. Their user agreement asks you to achnowledge a license giving them the right to examine any web page to which you attach a rating; however, I don't see anything preventing someone from simply duplicating it without going through the system. >also, JR, you say the system does not determine "appropriateness". >but in my view it does indirectly. an author can "falsify" his submission >to say that his page has no sex or violence. (who is to say he is >wrong? the internet ratings police?) this will implicitly determine >the "appropriateness" of his page for people who screen their >browswers based on the keywords that were affected. As I've stated above, they claim that they will check to see. The SafeSurf page, as well as recruiting the CyberAngels to check, also claims that A. The "Internet community" will punish someone for fake ratings B. Anyone putting a too-low rating on a page with sexual content will be prosecuted (apparantly for "contributing to the delinquency of a minor" or some such nonsense) >if there is a market-driven RSAC rating thing going on not described >in the above article, I'd like to see it. but the above excerpt does >not describe a market-driven system. No, it isn't. For a market-driven system to emerge, we're going to have to have one or both of two things: A. Raters being paid by the people who post web pages. Not likely. B. Raters being paid by the people who get the ratings. More likely. Neither the RSAC or SafeSurf systems does either of these. -Allen

2 1

Re: self-ratings vs. market ratings
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"blancw(a)MICROSOFT.com" "Blanc Weber" 10-MAY-1996 16:21:20.63 >The more automated that filtering becomes, so that the viewer (be it an >adult or a child) requires less and less personal involvement in >evaluating what is appropriate (or even interesting) for themselves, the >more weak & piddly (ignorant & psychologically dependent) those people >could become, falling into the habit of having others - or an automatic >robocop - do their content-filtering for them. Not a good system to >introduce into a dynamic world-order. Like all automatic things, it can >encourage intellectual lassitude. Like all tools, this one can also be >misemployed. >But, of course, surfers can make a cultural decision: sex&violence? or >namby-pamby? :>) A good point. Something to keep in mind with the CyberAngels' liking for ratings - remember "angels(a)wavenet.com"'s rantings about "elites"? -Allen

1 0

Edited Edupage, 9 May 1996
by E. ALLEN SMITH 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

From: IN%"educom(a)elanor.oit.unc.edu" 9-MAY-1996 22:01:14.77 >REGIONAL BELLS WANT RATE HIKES FOR WIRING SCHOOLS >The United States Telephone Association would like to raise the average U.S. >monthly phone bill by about $10 over the next five years to pay for wiring >schools and libraries with new lines for phones and computers, and to >subsidize poor and rural customers. The proposal assumes an $11 billion >cost for wiring schools and libraries, with local phone companies paying >about a third to a half of that. The rest would come from a surcharge on >other services, such as cellular. "No single industry should be held >responsible for fulfilling this major goal," says USTA's president. "Each >has a role and should make a significant contribution to the national >education technology mandate." (Investor's Business Daily 8 May 96 A7) The "subsidize poor and rural customers" line makes me glad I don't have a phone line. >ALLIANCE SEEKS ELECTRONIC SECURITY >An alliance of software companies has established the Electronic Licensing >and Security Initiative to develop a system that uses electronic tokens >linked to a software package to securely track software rentals, licenses >and purchases. The group also plans to develop an electronic clearinghouse >to provide and track licenses. Several major software producers, including >Microsoft, IBM and AT&T have said they will support the Initiative's >technology. (Wall Street Journal 6 May 96 B6) Anyone know how this is supposed to work? It sounds like a non-anonymous digital cash system, in essence. >IBM'S INFOMARKET TOLL BOOTH >IBM has persuaded some 30 companies, including Eastman Kodak, Xerox, >Reuters, America Online and Yahoo!, to use its new infoMarket >electronic-content clearinghouse for displaying and distributing their >wares. The infoMarket concept requires customers to pay for only what they >use, with the content providers controlling the information and setting >their own prices. "Charging only for what you want is a very attractive >scheme," says one electronic database provider. The system is based on >"Cryptolopes" -- secure electronic packaging that, when opened, bind the >user to a contractual agreement regarding the use of the content. If the >content is distributed beyond that agreement, the technology can track its >usage and bill the original purchaser for subsequent viewings. "It's a >complete break from all other ways information has been published on the Net >to date," says an industry consultant. "It turns pass-along from a business >threat to a business opportunity." (Business Week 13 May 96 p114) Again, it's not clear how this is supposed to work. It does remind me of that information-network thing that was promoted on the Extropian lists, except that didn't have any provisions on reuse. -Allen >*************************************************************** >Edupage ... is what you've just finished reading. To subscribe to Edupage: >send mail to: listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: subscribe edupage >Alfred North Whitehead (if your name is Alfred North Whitehead; otherwise, >substitute your own name). ... To cancel, send a message to: >listproc(a)educom.unc.edu with the message: unsubscribe edupage. (If you >have subscription problems, send mail to educom(a)educom.unc.edu.)

1 0